IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. Decided on : ITA 195/2012, C.M. APPL.5434/2012
|
|
- Shavonne Parrish
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Decided on : ITA 195/2012, C.M. APPL.5434/2012 ITA 196/2012, C.M. APPL. 5436/2012 ITA 197/2012, C.M. APPL.5437/2012 ITA 198/2012, C.M. APPL.5439/2012 ITA 199/2012, C.M. APPL.5441/2012 ITA 203/2012, C.M. APPL.5444/2012 CIT..Appellant Through: Sh. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel and Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate, for Revenue. Versus M/S. AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD...Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Ms. Rani Kiyala and Sh. Piyush Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The revenue has preferred these batch of appeals, claiming to be aggrieved by a common decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos.2376/Del/2011 to 2381/Del/2011 dated
2 2. The facts necessary to decide these appeals are that there was a search and seizure action under Section 132 on the Ambience Group of Companies, on The assessee belongs to the group which was covered in the search. In that year the assessee was in the property construction business i.e. building a mall in the National Capital Region of Delhi. The AO noted that the company was constructing the Ambience Mall Projects, at NH-8, Gurgaon. Major construction work for the Mall was by M/s Ambience Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. and expenses were accounted for on the basis of bills drawn by the construction company. Certain costs and expenses were incurred directly by the assessee in its project. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the AO, based on certain seized documents mentioned in the assessment order concluded that the expenses incurred on the construction of Ambience Mall project, NH-8, Gurgaon were not completely reflected in the books of account. He therefore, made a reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 142A of the Income Tax Act. The Valuation Officer in his report, stated that the total investment incurred in the said property should have been `437,88,53,104/- over various years. As against that the assessee had shown the investment at `421,60,56,594/- for the relative period, in its books of account. The comparative year wise details of the expenses shown by the assessee company and as estimated by the Valuation Officer are as under: Period of Construction Cost of construction as per returns Cost of construction as per Valuation Officer Difference / /- 7,33,655/ / /- 1,09,11,624/ /-
3 /- 2,46,12,807/ / /- 4,14,77,078/ / /- 4,68,24,043/ / /- 3,82,40,303/- TOTAL 421,60,56,594/- 437,88,53,104/- 16,27,96,510/- 4. The Assessing Officer made additions to the returned income as a result of the difference between the cost of construction as disclosed in the returns and cost of construction estimated by the District Valuation Officer for each year. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred a first appeal where detailed explanations and documents were filed by it. The CIT(A) called for AO s remand report and after consideration of the material available struck of the additions. It was held by the Commissioner (A) that the reference under Section 142-A (to the valuation officer) was not valid, since the AO did not advert to any specific defects in the books of accounts maintained and audited and his presumption that some expenses mentioned in seized documents on account of construction were not completely recorded in the books of accounts was not found correct when they were explained by the appellant and verified by the Assessing Officer with the supporting evidence corroborating the books of accounts. Since Assessing Officer had also not rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3), by pointing out any defect, the reference to the DVO was not valid and therefore, his report could not be used for framing assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, even if such report were considered valid. The Commissioner also held that that the difference between the cost of construction as per the books of accounts and the estimated cost of
4 construction (according to the DVO s report) is only in the range of 3.86%, a marginal, and an acceptable one. The report is only an estimation and variation is bound to be there for various reasons/factors as held by several judicial authorities. The order of the CIT (A) was upheld by the Tribunal. 5. Counsel for the revenue argued that since the assessee was not able to demonstrate its cost of construction, the reference to the DVO was justified. It was contended that the AO had authority to make additions without making any pointed mention to specific defects in the books of account. It was argued that there is no obligation under any provision of the Act that before taking such action, the books of accounts or materials furnished by the assessee had to be rejected. 6. It was submitted that the reference to the DVO under Section 142A was valid and proper, because the assessee did not explain the incriminating material seized during the search. In effect, in this case, the additions made by the AO were under Section 69-B of the Act, because the assessee could not explain the documents found during the search. 7. It was next contended that the difference between the DVO s report and the assessee s investment, in percentage terms was very low, i.e. 3.86%. However, the quantum, in monetary or real terms was large. The lower appellate authorities fell into error in directing that the additions made in the case, should be set aside. 8. The appellant s contention was that the Ambience group has many associated concerns all of which were simultaneously searched. During the search, some incriminating material were found and seized which pertained to all the group entities. The incriminating material was subsequently explained. However, at the time of search, immediate explanation was demanded from the assessee. To avoid this situation, the assessee group agreed to declare an amount of `. 40 crores as additional income in various group entities. This was honoured and taxes on that amount were paid. Citing incriminating material, the AO sought to exceed the declaration, ignoring that the amount of `.40 crores was declared on the ground of inability to explain. The so called incriminating materials and documents were later explained in writing before AO during assessment. As a result there was no justification for him to seek recourse to reference to DVO, since no unexplained materials existed.
5 9. It was submitted that during assessment proceedings, the assessee had reconciled the alleged incriminating evidence and explained that they were recorded in the books of account of the various group entities. The AO s order was silent on this and did not discuss this material and relevant facts. Thus, the assessee duly discharged its burden in respect of incriminating materials, as regards the amount of ` 40 crores, and by furnishing adequate explanation about the incriminating material which was not controverted or dealt with by the AO. In view of these facts, no addition could be made. The books of account offered by the assessee, were audited. Therefore, the AO could not have sought recourse to valuation under Section 142-A of the Act, without first rejecting it, or at least recording what was wrong or defective with such books (of account). 10. At the outset, this Court notices that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sargam Cinema v Commissioner of Income Tax (2011) 241 CTR (SC) 179, the question of whether the power under Section 142-A could be invoked, without rejecting through findings that books of accounts were unacceptable. The Supreme Court held that: 4. In the present case, we find that the Tribunal decided the matter rightly in favour of the assessee in as much as the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessing authority could not have referred the matter to the DVO without the books of account being rejected. In the present case, a categorical finding is recorded by the Tribunal that the books were never rejected. This aspect has not been considered by the High Court. In the circumstances, reliance placed on the report of the DVO was misconceived. Therefore, in the absence of a finding rejecting the accounts of the assessee in this case, the reference to the DVO could not have been made by the AO in the first place. 11. Apart from the above consideration, the power of the AO to refer the question of valuation of expenses is the subject of binding decisions of this court. The Supreme Court had, in Amiya Bala Paul v Commissioner of Income Tax [2003] 262 ITR 407 (of course dealing with powers of the AO to refer the question of valuation, pre-section 142-A, but in the context of the then prevailing Section 55-A and Section 142 (2)) held that no addition could be made by the AO, exclusively relying upon the value arrived at by the DVO. It was held that: 11. The common feature of Sections 133(6) and 142(2) is that the Assessing Officer is the fact-finding authority. It is his opinion on the basis
6 of the facts as found on an enquiry conducted by himself which results in the assessment order. A report by the Valuation Officer under Section 55A is on the other hand the outcome of an inquiry held by the Valuation Officer himself and reflects his opinion on the evidence before him. Such a report would not be the result of an inquiry by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of Section 133(6) or Section 142(2). It is true that the Assessing Officer is not bound by strict rules of evidence and a report of a Valuation Officer under Section 55A may be considered by the Assessing Officer as a piece of evidence if it is relevant. (See CIT v. East Commercial Co. Ltd. : 1967 LXIII ITR 449, 457). However, the power of inquiry granted to an Assessing Officer under Sections 133(6) and 142(2) does not include the power to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer for an enquiry by him. 12. Section 142A, which was introduced in 2004, reads as follows: " 142A. For the purposes of making an assessment or reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in section 69A or section 69B is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him." 13. The effect of Section 142-A and the power to make a reference to the DVO, in the context of value of expenditure, was considered by this Court, in another case involving a construction company, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aar Pee Apartments P. Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 206, as follows: It is clear from the reading of sub-section (1) of this provision that it enables the Assessing Officer to get the valuation done from the Valuation Officer in certain specific types of cases. These would be the cases wherein an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in section 69A or 69B is required. There is no mention about section 69C of the Act. As is clear from the above, section 69A deals with unexplained money. Section 69B likewise relates to the amount of investment, etc., not fully disclosed the books of account. On the other hand, the provision relates to unexplained expenditure in section 69C. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had doubts about the expenditure incurred on the project. As pointed out above, the assessee had shown the
7 expenditure on the Yusuf Sarai Project as Rs. 39,69,440. Since the Assessing Officer had doubted this expenditure, he referred the matter to the DVO for the purpose of determining the cost of construction of the said project. However, as pointed out above, for the purpose of getting himself satisfied about the purported unexplained expenditure under section 69C powers under section 142A could not be invoked. Learned counsel for Revenue submitted that such a power could be traced to Section 69B of the Act which relates to amount of investment, etc., not fully disclosed in the books of account. Her submission was that the " expenditure" incurred should be considered as coming within the expression " investment". We cannot agree with this submission of learned counsel for the Revenue. If investments could include within its fold the expenditure as well which is incurred by a businessman during the course of his business, there was no necessity of having a separate provision under section 69C of the Act which deals with unexplained " expenditure" and reads as under : " 69C. Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the amount covered by such expenditure or part thereof, as the case may be, may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year." The scope and ambit of section 69B and 69C are altogether different. The connotation to the investment appearing in section 69B has to be in the context of investments made in some property or any other type of investment and it could not be the business expenditure. The word " investment" contained in section 69B deals with investment in bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, etc. If the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue is accepted and the expression is given a wider meaning as sought to be made out, the provisions of section 69C shall be rendered otiose. The learned counsel for the Revenue, however, took another plea to buttress her submission. She submitted that having regard to the circumstances under which section 142A was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, it be deemed that the intention of the Legislature was to include even those un-
8 explained expenditure stipulated in section 69C. No doubt the need behind inserting section 142A was to empower the Assessing Officer to make a reference to the Valuation Officer as there were no such specific power and the existing provision contained in section 131 was inadequate. However, even this Statement of Objects and Reasons clearly confined, and limited the reference " to hold a scientific, technical and expert investigation, etc." Learned counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the Central Board of Direct Taxes circular issued by it explaining the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2004, which specifically omits the word " expenditure" as well as section 69C. It is on this basis that section 142A was inserted in the form as it appears on the statute book now. If the intention was to include unexplained expenditure as contemplated in section 69C of the Act as well this provision should have been specifically mentioned in section 142A of the Act. From the reading of sub-section (1) of section 142A, it is clear that the Legislature referred to the provisions of section 69, 69A and 69B but specifically excluded section 69C. The principle of causus omissus becomes applicable in a situation like this. What is not included by the Legislature and rather specifically excluded, cannot be incorporated by the court through the process of interpretation. The only remedy is to amend the provisions. It is not the function of the court to legislate or to plug the loopholes in the law. In the present case, except the report of the DVO on which the Assessing Officer relied upon, there was nothing on record to suggest that there was any other evidence to disbelieve the expenditure shown by the assessee. In fact during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the assessee produced the assessment order which clearly demonstrates that the expenditure shown by the assessee from the time, when it was an ongoing project, was examined and accepted by the Assessing Officer. 14. In the present case, during the time that the assessee s appeal was pending before the Appellate Commissioner, a remand report was sought for. This report was furnished on It stated, among other things, as follows: a questionnaire was also issued to the assessee to explain the expenditure as mentioned in these seized documents and the assessee subsequently explained these expenses as mentioned in the various annexures with the
9 supporting evidence vis-à-vis the books of accounts and same were verified." 15. It is also a matter of record that an Office Note had been made by the AO, when the assessment order was issued. That contained details of what were examined, in respect of the assessee s books and accounts, and also adverted to an Appraisal Report, and stated that: as per the Appraisal Report, the bank accounts of the group companies also reveals a large number of other current and saving bank accounts, which need to be investigated. In this case, there are very few transactions which have been examined and found to be normal business transactions with other concerns, and have been explained satisfactorily. Therefore, no adverse inference is drawn 4. As regards the disallowability of interest as per the provisions of section 36 (1)(iii) of the IT Act, the issue has been examined and no adverse inference is drawn. 5. The seized documents pertaining to this company were duly confronted vide questionnaire dated and the reply furnished thereof satisfactorily explains the transactions recorded therein which have been verified vis-à-vis books of account/balance Sheet. 16. In view of the above, it is evident that the valuation in this case was uncritically accepted by the AO. As can be seen from a comparison of the valuation by the assessee, with that of the DVO, the variation is 3.86 %. This is a very minor variation, having regard to the large amounts involved. Besides, the fact that the AO did not examine the variations, with specific reference to any items of expenditure that were unreasonable, or showed wide variation, these differences can also be put down to differing perceptions, and the practice adopted by the concerned business activity. 17. In view of the above discussion, and having regard to the fact that the variation in valuation, in this case between what was disclosed by the assessee and what was indicated by the DVO is not significant, this court is of opinion that there is no infirmity in the findings contained in the impugned order of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
10 JULY 27, 2012 Sd/- R.V.EASWAR, J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Date of decision: ITA 232/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Date of decision: 22.11.2012 ITA 232/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel... Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT RESERVED ON: PRONOUNCED ON: ITA No.119/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT RESERVED ON: 09.10.2012 PRONOUNCED ON: 20.11.2012 ITA No.119/2012 CIT... Appellant Through : Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. Standing counsel versus
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Decided on: ITA 31/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Decided on: 13.02.2014 ITA 31/2013 ONASSIS AXLES PRIVATE LIMITED... Appellant Through: Sh. Salil Aggarwal and Sh. Prakash Kumar, Advocates.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATER. Judgment delivered on: ITA 243/2008. versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATER Judgment delivered on: 26.11.2008 ITA 243/2008 SUBODH KUMAR BHARGAVA... Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX... Respondent Advocates
More informationTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XIII Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Reserved on: 18.10.2012 Pronounced on : 30.11.2012 ITA 602/2010 ITA 607/2010 ITA 921/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XIII Appellant
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 607/2015. versus AND ITA 608/2015. versus
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 12. + ITA 607/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Raghvendra Singh and Mr.Shikhar Garg,
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 328/2008 Reserved on : July 23, 2009 Date of decision : July 24, 2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant. Through: Ms. P.L. Bansal with Ms. Anshul
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, Date of Decision : 28th February, ITA 92/2011.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Date of Decision : 28th February, 2012. ITA 92/2011 CIT Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel... Appellant versus MACHINO
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, Date of Decision: 23rd February, ITA 1222/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Date of Decision: 23rd February, 2012. ITA 1222/2011 CIT... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 20 th January, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 20 th January, 2010 + ITA 239/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant Through: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal versus GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. Through:...
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Judgment delivered on: ITA No.415/ Appellant.
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Judgment delivered on: 22.01.2013 ITA No.415/2012 CIT... Appellant versus MAK DATA LTD... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:
More information$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON: versus
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON: 25.02.2015 + ITA 117/2015 JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT LTD... Appellant Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX...
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. Judgment delivered on : ITA Nos. 697/2007, 698/2007 & 699/2007.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Judgment delivered on : 06.03.2009 ITA Nos. 697/2007, 698/2007 & 699/2007 ESTER INDUSTRIES LIMITED... Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. ITA No-160/2005. Judgment reserved on: 12th March, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER ITA No-160/2005 Judgment reserved on: 12th March, 2007 Judgment delivered on: 24th May, 2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I, NEW DELHI...
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. Reserved on: Pronounced on:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Reserved on: 18.02.2014 Pronounced on: 14.03.2014 ITA 55/2014, C.M. APPL. 2383/2014 & 2384/2014 SH. GULSHAN MALIK..Appellant Through: Sh.
More informationITA No. 140 of had been sold on , had been handed over to him. The assessee furnished the desired information and documents, including
ITA No. 140 of 2000-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 140 of 2000 Date of Decision: 24.9.2010 Vinod Kumar Jain...Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and
More information$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 448/2016, CM APPL.26426/2016 TRIUNE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED... Appellant Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati with Mr. Rony O John, Mr. Shashi Mathews and Ms.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 18.12.2015 + ITA 719/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -03 + ITA 728/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -03 + ITA 730/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 17.11.2016 Pronounced on: 03.07.2017 + ITA 240/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant Through : Sh. Raghvendra Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel and
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Decided on: 10th February, 2015 ITA 234/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Decided on: 10th February, 2015 ITA 234/2014 CIT-XI... Appellant Through Mr. N P Sahni, sr. standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati and Mr.
More information$~R * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON: ITA /2000 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant
$~R-11-16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON: 19.02.2015 + ITA 120-125/2000 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant in all cases versus NISHI MEHRA... Respondent in ITA 120/2000 ARUN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT RESERVED ON: DECIDED ON: ITA 776/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT RESERVED ON: 08.10.2012 DECIDED ON: 05.11.2012 ITA 776/2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-II... Appellant Through: Sh. Sanjeev Sabharwal,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 09.01.2009 ITA 1130/2006 09.01.2009 M/S HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD Appellant Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Respondent
More informationwith ITA No.66/2011 % Decision Delivered On: JANUARY 20, VERSUS ORIENT CERAMICS & INDS. LTD. VERSUS
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.65 of 2011 with ITA No.66/2011 % Decision Delivered On: JANUARY 20, 2011. 1) ITA No.65 of 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant through : Mr. Anupam
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 14 + ITA 557/2015. versus CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R %
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 14 + ITA 557/2015 COPERION IDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED... Appellant Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor and Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 2. + ITA 665/2015. versus AND 3. + ITA 666/2015. versus
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 2. + ITA 665/2015 PR. CIT-1... Appellant Through: Mr. N. P. Sahni, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate. versus ATLANTA CAPITAL PVT. LTD....
More informationTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate VERSUS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT ITA NO.1192/2011 Reserved on : 8th November, 2011. Date of Decision : 21st November, 2011. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV... Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, Date of Decision : 29th February, ITA 401/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Date of Decision : 29th February, 2012. ITA 401/2011 CIT... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, sr. standing counsel with Mr. Amit
More informationDIRECT TAXES Tribunal
Jitendra singh & sameer dalal Advocates DIRECT TAXES Tribunal REPORTED 1. TDS under section 194I provision for rent vis-à-vis actual payment assessee making provisions for disputed rent payable to landlord
More informationCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI CENTRAL -III. Mr. P Roy Chaudhuri, sr. standing counsel for revenue Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Adv.
$~9 to 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: May 21, 2015. + ITA 404/2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI CENTRAL-III VISHAN DAS + ITA 405/2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI CENTRAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. ITA No.798 /2007. Judgment reserved on: 27th March, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER ITA No.798 /2007 Judgment reserved on: 27th March, 2008 Judgment delivered on:7th April, 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-II, New
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT DECIDED ON: ITA 176/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT DECIDED ON: 25.04.2014 ITA 176/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI I... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel with
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 605/2012. CIT... Appellant. Through: Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 605/2012 CIT... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT LTD... Respondent Through: Mr Rajat Navet
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DVAT ACT, 2004 Decided on : ST.APPL. 65/2014. versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DVAT ACT, 2004 Decided on : 19.02.2015 ST.APPL. 65/2014 THE COMMISSIONER, VAT Through : Sh. H.C. Bhatia, Special Counsel.... Appellant A.K. WOOLLEN INDUSTRIES
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX. Judgment reserved on : Judgment delivered on : ITA No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX Judgment reserved on : 08.09.2008 Judgment delivered on : 06.11.2008 ITA No. 428/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-II... Appellant -versus-
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.49
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4980/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 09 Assistant
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7313/2010 Date of decision: December 08, 2011 RRB CONSULTANTS AND ENGINEERS PVT LTD... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.Krishnan with Mr. Nishank Singh,
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Pronounced on:
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 07.12.2016 Pronounced on: 09.02.2017 + ITA 463/2016 & CM No. 26604/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19... Appellant Versus SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL +
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 05 TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR BETWEEN: ITA NO.828/2007 H.Raghavendra
More information2 sake of congruence, brevity and convenience these are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Lat
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH: JODHPUR (BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 228/Jodh/2014 [A.Y. 1998-1999] ITA No. 229/Jodh/2014
More informationCORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5848 of 2010 TO SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5850 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. Reserved on: 19th March, Date of Decision: 25th April, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 3891/2013 SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Reserved on: 19th March, 2014 Date of Decision: 25th April, 2014 SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD... Petitioner Through
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (O&M) Date of decision: 4.8.2010 M/s V.K. Timber Pvt. Ltd. -----Appellant. Vs. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) & another. -----Respondents CORAM:-
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION No OF 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3314 OF 2004 wp-3314-2004.sxw M/s. Eskay K'n' IT (India) Ltd... Petitioner. V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income
More informationAnd ITA 161/2015. ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 6&7 + ITA 160/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney,Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing counsel
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. - versus M/S ZORAVAR VANASPATI LIMITED
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 24.07.2009 + ITA 596/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant - versus M/S ZORAVAR VANASPATI LIMITED... Respondent Advocates who appeared
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ITA NO.530/2011. Reserved on : 28th November, 2011.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ITA NO.530/2011 Reserved on : 28th November, 2011. Date of Decision : 16th December, 2011. Commissioner of Income Tax Integrated Technologies
More information(hereinafter referred to as the "CIT (Appeals)") deleting the addition of Rs.34,50,000/- made under Section 68 of the Act with respect to the share ap
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 23 rd August, 2013 Judgment pronounced on: 28 th November, 2013 + ITA 2080/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek
More informationG.A no.1150 of 2015 ITAT no.52 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE
G.A no.1150 of 2015 ITAT no.52 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2 Versus M/s. G K K Capital Markets (P) Limited
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Bennett Coleman & Co.Ltd., The Times
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD. TAX APPEAL No of 2008 ======================================================
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1980 of 2008 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Appellant(s) Versus WEST INN LIMITED - Opponent(s) Appearance : MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s)
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1580/Del/2010 Assessment Year : 2004-05 05 M/s
More informationITA No. 331 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 331 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 4, 2009
ITA No. 331 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 331 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 4, 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax-II...Appellant M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Versus...Respondent
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + WP(C)No.8902/2007 & CM No.16817/2007
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C)No.8902/2007 & CM No.16817/2007 # JAL HOTELS CO. LTD.... Petitioner through! Mr. N. Venkatraman, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Achin Goel, Adv. versus $ ASSTT. DIR.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE Present : Hon ble Justice PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE Hon ble Justice SANKAR PRASAD MITRA ITA No. 373 OF 2005 BANGODAYA COTTON MILLS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Tax Appeal No. 7 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Tax Appeal No. 7 of 2005 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur Versus Appellant M/s. Hitech Chemical (P) Ltd., Jamshedpur Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 28.11.2011 + ITA 938/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant versus AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI. Before Shri G S Pannu, Accountant Member & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI Before Shri G S Pannu, Accountant Member & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Limited (Formerly known
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1322 /Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Asstt.
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA
1 ITA No. 686/KOL/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) and Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 686/KOL/2017
More informationCIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. ()
(2010) 322 ITR 0158 :(2010) 032 (I) ITCL 0600 :(2010) 230 CTR 0320 :(2010) 036 DTR 0449 CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. () INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Penalty under section 271(1)(c)--Inaccurate particulars
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Central Excise Act, 1944 DECIDED ON: CEAC 22/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Central Excise Act, 1944 DECIDED ON: 23.07.2012 CEAC 22/2012 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT)... Petitioner Through: Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate versus
More informationof the CIT(A)- 16, New Delhi relating to assessment year
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Prem Jain, 2683/85, Gali
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 DCIT, Cir. 6(1), R.No.506, 5 th
More information$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1687/2010 DECIDED ON: 16.08.2012 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advocate.
More informationREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF Tapan Kumar Dutta...
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2014 OF 2007 Tapan Kumar Dutta... Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal... Respondent(s) J U
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 1749/2010... Appellant Mr.Sanjeev Counsel. Sabharwal, Sr. Standing MAGIC INTERNATIONAL P LTD... Respondent Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta with Ms.Rani Kiyala, Advocates.
More informationCommissioner of Income Tax 1. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1613 OF 2014 1613-14-itxa=.doc Commissioner of Income Tax 1..Appellant Versus M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure
More informationCommissioner of Income Tax 2. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant Mr. Niraj Sheth i/b Atul Jasani for the respondent. DATED : 4 th JUNE, 2018.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1363 OF 2015 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1358 OF 2015 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1359 OF 2015 Commissioner
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD. SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No of CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD - Petitioner(s) Versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15566 of 2011 CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD - Petitioner(s) Versus ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(OSD) & 1 - Respondent(s) Appearance :
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE A BENCH, BANGALORE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE A BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SMT P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.220 & 1043(BNG.)/2013 (Assessment year
More informationCommissioner of Income Tax 24
vikrant 1/16 6 ITXA 1709 2014+.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1709 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax 20 Shri. Deepak Kumar Agarwal
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Reserved on: Pronounced on: ITA 386/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Reserved on: 26.02.2015 Pronounced on: 13.03.2015 ITA 386/2013 CIT.Appellant Through: Sh. Balbir Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel and Sh. Abhishek
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 13.05.2013 + W.P.(C) 8562/2007 & CM Nos. 16150/2007 & 17153/2007 MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD... Petitioner versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARSD 15(3), NEW DELHI ROOM NO.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. Date of decision : November 28, 2007 ITA 348/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER Date of decision : November 28, 2007 ITA 348/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... APPELLANT Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate versus
More informationBefore Sh. J. S. Reddy, AM And Sh. George George K., JM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI Before Sh. J. S. Reddy, AM And Sh. George George K., JM : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7 New Delhi
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 22.01.2013 + ITA No.415/2012 CIT... Appellant versus MAK DATA LTD... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr
More informationDATED: 9th January, 2009
(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1398 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income ) Tax-3 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. ) Road, Mumbai-400 020.
More informationREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF B.L. Passi... Appellant(s)
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3892 OF 2007 B.L. Passi... Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi... Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD. TAX APPEAL NO. 93 of 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 93 of 2000 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================
More informationVs. Date of hearing : Date of Pronouncement : O R D E R
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5720/Mum/2011 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/s. Forever
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHE A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHE A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Malpani Estates, S.No.150, Malpani House, Indira Gandhi Marg,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs.7541-7542 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 34306-34307 of 2009) GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd.. Appellant(s) Versus
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3 OF 2013 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.
Shiv itxa1627.12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3 OF 2013 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1627 OF 2012 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1603 OF 2013
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1149/HYD/2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.11080 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 25257 OF 2015) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, PUNE...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) Original Side. I.T.A. No.201 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) Original Side PRESENT: The Hon ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND The Hon ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI I.T.A. No.201 of 2003 Md. Serajuddin
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Siddhi Home Makers, B-304, Shiv Chambers, Plot No.21, Sector
More informationNo disallowance under section 14A, where the assessee has got no income from a composite and indivisible business
1 No disallowance under section 14A, where the assessee has got no income from a composite and indivisible business [Published in 384 ITR (Jour) 1 (Part-1)] By S.K.Tyagi Recently in the case of one of
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1 ITA Nos. 6675 & 6676/Del/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6675/DEL/2015 ( A.Y 2013-14)
More information2 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding hat there was no negative cash balance and that the
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, HON BLE VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI C. M. GARG, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year-2009-10) Income Tax Officer
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 9. + W.P.(C) 6422/2013 & CM No.14002/2013 (Stay) versus. With W.P.(C) 4558/2014.
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 9. + W.P.(C) 6422/2013 & CM No.14002/2013 (Stay) INDORAMA SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD.... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH 'B' NEW DELHI. ITA Nos.2337 & 4337/Del/2010 Assessment Years: &
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH 'B' NEW DELHI ITA Nos.2337 & 4337/Del/2010 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-2008 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI Vs M/s ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ASN 1/15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Sir Joravar Bhavan. 93, Maharshi Karve Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020. PA
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1743/Hyd/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Bellwether
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. ITA No.3209 of 2005 ITA No.3165 of ITA No.3209 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE ITA No.3209 of 2005 ITA No.3165 of 2005 ITA No.3209 of 2005 1) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 2) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
More informationCA SHARAD A SHAH. 21/06/2014 DTRC - Pune WIRC
CA SHARAD A SHAH 21/06/2014 DTRC - Pune WIRC-2014 1 Relevant Part of Section 271 (1) If the Assessing Officer] or the [Commissioner (Appeals)][or the Commissioner] in the course of any proceedings under
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4212 & 4213/DEL/ 2011 (Assessment Years : 2004-05
More informationAppellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut And Another
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 33 Case:- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 73 of 2001 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut And Another Respondent :- M/S Jindal Polyester & Steel Ltd.
More information